Why Must Life Have Meaning or Purpose

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

It feels odd to think that this will be the last blog post for class. As
the class really begins to hit a stride with more people grasping the content
and applying it to their life experiences and views, we end so abruptly, or anti-climactic,
like a crescendo that never rises. It is a shame, however, when put in context
to the magnitude of the subject matter, it is hard to imagine it ending any
other way. Though it is a shame it must come to an end, that end is met with a
content feeling as the experience was enjoyable.

There were two specific instances in class that were rather flattering
and admittedly more eye opening than I really would have anticipated them to
be. They both apply very much to the content of our final class as well, which
I do feel brings that crescendo up an octave, though still not to a climax. At
one point in class, while I was explaining how the language used between Sartre
and Heidegger on being-with-others and being-for-others explained the content
more explicitly than perhaps noticed, Thad stated that he “loves hearing me
talk.” I wasn’t certain of the sincerity at first, as I wasn’t sure I heard it
correctly. Then he made it clear that I heard him correctly and it was not
facetious, but sincere. The second came at the end of class when I went to
thank him for the experience and say goodbye, he said something I find both
very flattering and rather humorous. He said “it was a pleasure to have you in
class…… I’m not sure why you took the class as it seems like you already took
the course before.” Now, before I tie this into our discussion of bad faith and
being-for-others, I need to give a little back story of what brought me to the
class.

I am an engineering major and received my associate degree in IT
Networking Security, after switching my major from Music Business/Audio
Engineering. I chose this course because I needed an upper level elective, and
I needed a fun course I knew I would enjoy to offset the stress sure to come
from the heavy load of coursework I placed on my shoulders this semester. I
have discussed tragic experiences of my past in class, and to a large degree in
my posts. I have also stated that it lead me to question many things about life
at an incredibly earlier age than is typical. I was never explicit with what it
was that I studied however. In regards to philosophy and existentialism, these
were not the books I was researching. I spent most of my life reading religious
doctrines such as the bible (Old/New Testament, ANKJ, NAB, etc), Masoretic Text
(Torah, Tanakh, Nevi’im), Islam (Qur’an), Mormon (Standard
Works), and the Book of the Dead (among a number of others).Aside
from very dry religious doctrines, I also read many books on psychology,
evolutionary sciences, social criticism, political criticism/studies, religious
criticism (Sagan, Dawkins, etc), and religious propaganda (ala Kent Hovind).
Who I am philosophically derives from my studies of these various books, years
of religious discussions/arguments, reflection of the events of my life,
conversations of the life of others, and an almost constant internal discussion
of life and existence. Over time however, the discussions became more
bothersome than interesting as the problem of one’s age became obnoxiously
apparent. Others my age hadn't given the subject much thought and had a
tendency to either show they had no interest to do so, or simply became
instantly defensive the second a belief or view was questioned. Those older
than myself either paid no mind to my interest as I was “too young to
understand such a topic”, or fell into the same defensive nature as described.
To find someone who had equal care for the subject matter became too time
consuming when combined with working 2 jobs and narrowing the things in life I
was passionate about so I could focus on something to essentially become my
“career”, to use the word more loosely than the definition. Around this time, a
lot of people began to question the topic more seriously, and wanted to talk of
the subject more often. Being that I was still young, and most of the people
around me also were, existentialism was constantly thrown into the topic
forcibly (though not always) and described in a manner that seemed as though
the authors were simply bloating concepts that seemed obvious and simple with
overly complex language and guide maps of understanding in order to mask the
lack of understanding of the concept they were preaching. Obviously, it caused
me to shy away from existentialism entirely as I felt I was past debating the
obvious from pseudo-intellectuals that cared more about others acknowledging
their “unique” intellect and foresight in order to qualify their existence (the
irony is not lost).

With all of this being said, I feel it is
probably apparent to anyone who was interested in my points during class, has
read my blog or who has had discussions with me, that I have a very Nietzschean
point of view. So it should be no surprise who my introduction to
existentialism was. While I did not study philosophy, it is almost impossible
to study religion and not come across some amount of philosophical texts.
Nietzsche was someone I noticed was quoted incredibly so, and his quotes seemed
to have more applications than really possible; as those quoting had a tendency
to be polar opposites and the words were clearly out of context, as the words
seemed to resonate my own views regardless of how bastardized the context
seemed to be, or clearly was. So, I decided I would read one of his books and see
if I had been wrong about existentialism all along. When I was 27, 3 years ago,
I read my first existentialist book, Thus Spoke Zarathustra. I absolutely loved
it! It was filled with so many ideas and concepts that mirrored my own, only
put in such a beautiful and eloquent prose that it remained an echo in my brain
for months. I then realized that my notion of existentialism was incorrect,
when applied to the authors. It was simply the people who truly didn’t grasp
the intent and meaning of the authors that confused the content and worded it
in a manner that made it very undesirable. From here, I studied a number of
other mainstays in the proverbial existential must reads. With that said, I
must add that it did not alter any of my views or beliefs, perhaps in regards
to strengthening my views, however it did not have the impact on my life that
so many other people tend to have when they really delve into the content,
because I had gotten there on my own much earlier in life. I felt that I truly
did understand the content. I never really had to re-read the material and
struggle with it in order to get it. I felt that my history on the subject of
existence was far removed from most other people, so my mentality was more on
par with the authors than the audience (in most cases).

I fully understand how this may imply an
egotistical context, however I can assure you that is not at all the reality.
To any who have read my previous blogs, I hope it came through very clearly how
much of my life I have dedicated to the subject of existence and meaning, and
also how important the discussion is to me. As discussed in class during the
topic of being-for-others, Thad beat me to the punch when he said that we all
care about the judgment of others and in some manner live according to this. It
seemed that more people than I expected did not agree with this. I am not among
that group. Everyone in that room made the choice to go to college in order to
get a degree so they can begin careers. Well, college is not required to learn
a skill or trade. With the internet and incredible access to learning material,
one could easily use their off time from work to master a skill or trade.
However, we all chose to get a certificate that shows someone else that we are
qualified to fill a position over someone else who does not have that
certificate and also put ourselves in great debt in order to have the
opportunity to outshine other people.

To conclude my history of self-studies and personal reflection with why these seemingly small compliments were actually extremely
flattering and met with a very strong feeling of pride, I say be empathetic. To
come to conclusions to concepts you figured out on your own by studying
material that did not present the questions being discussed in the same context
by dedicating much of your life to the subject matter. Then to have someone
else who has also dedicated much of their life to the subject matter, loves the
discussion as well, has a very deep knowledge of the works in question, and a
Ph.D (as stated, that does matter to me, as it shows a passion), to view the
amalgamation of my experiences, the choices I have made from them and the
conclusions I have drawn from them in a manner he felt qualified the exchange
of those compliments. That absolutely meant a lot to me, and most certainly
added qualification to the light in which I view myself. Of course, this is
also because through the semester, he provided his insight and views of the
concepts very well and typically stated ideas that I felt were well thought out
and I mostly agreed with. This earned a great respect of him philosophically and
intellectually for me. Had I disagreed with him because I felt his thoughts
were not thought out very well, perhaps just regurgitating the opinions of
others, his compliments or grievances really would not have held any weight, as
I would have felt no respect for him intellectually (not necessarily
personally). As my judgment dictates what and who I apply value to in this
life, so does the judgment from others upon me. My “self” is my responsibility,
and even though others also shape my being, I am the person I am because of the
perceptions I have allowed to define who I am from others, as well as from
myself, and those all derive from the choices I have made within the confines
of my attributes of birth.

I say thank you to Thad for structuring the class so well and creating a very open environment for the discussions. Thank you to everyone who regularly participated, and others that simply had interest and took in what they could. Hopefully you all enjoyed the experience as much as I did.

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

The extreme views on emotions is something I always find
incredibly interesting. As I mentioned
in class, this is an area I am very familiar with myself for many reasons. When
I was a child I grew up in a poor household, moved once a year for that reason,
was in a school cafeteria in 1st grade with half of the school
(grades 1-5, mixed) with me when a tornado hit the school cafeteria killing some
and injuring very many in rather horrific fashion, dealt with verbal abuse
regularly; the point being, it was a rough time and caused a few issues to say
the least. While it lead to a rather early interest in philosophy and religious
studies, it also lead to a lot of self-reflection and self-evaluation. Like
most people in these situations, I had a lot of anger and was not shy about
letting it out when something “triggered” it. I saw therapists, but was left
with a bad view of those in the practice, however I hated feeling on edge about
the most idiotic things. At this time, I realized something else about myself
that showed an interesting contrast the caused me to question how much of my
anger and helpless feeling to it was actually my own doing. It always bothered
me when people told me how “they couldn’t imagine……” about watching friends die
in such a manner as an adult, let alone as a child, and that just seemed
ridiculous to me. I was afraid, sad, in disbelief, but mostly, I didn’t want to
die and I didn’t want my friends to die either. Really, that was it. I have
seen a lot of footage from documentaries that showed images that were equally,
and often times far more graphic, than the things I saw that day. I am aware
that others have as well. I knew of empathy and thought it was something very
common among us humans, I quickly found out that this was not so. People had to
willfully choose to ignore empathy and essentially single out themselves and
others to allude to some disconnect that is just impossible to mend between
people. I still find that to be true to this day. I still listen to endless
arguments that they don’t choose, it is just simply not possible. To this
argument and answer I say simply, and belligerently, not only is that
incorrect, it is incredibly small minded and outright lazy; an excuse.

Now, how does this correlate to my initial point of my seething anger and
temper? That is simple, how could I so easily see how people were choosing to
disregard the existence of empathy, and yet say my own excuses about my “uncontrollable”
anger? I have never liked hypocrisy, and seeing that in myself when I was 11 is
an odd thing to explain. When you are so young and ask these questions, you
tend to be met with a condescending notion from pretty much everyone, and not
having the internet (this was around 1991) made resources scarce. So, I read
what books I could from the library, friends parents, friends, but mostly I
just put myself on trial (not maliciously) over all of my choices. Through this
I found that “controlling” the anger was complete non-sense and nothing but an
excuse itself. I had no such chemical imbalance that caused a retardation of my
mental functions, no mental behavioral disorder at all, in fact, an incredibly
minor amount of people actually do in comparison to those who do not. All I had
was a jitteriness and a tendency to lose my place and zone out a bit/become
very tired (later classed under ADHD, another topic entirely) most likely due
to seizures from PTSD from not dealing with the issues of my childhood when
they should have been. Still, those issues I managed to work with and
understand them as they applied to my daily choices. Why did I have to “control”
this magical thing that simply existed? I found that answer was very straight
forward and inescapable, I didn’t. In fact, I couldn’t. It only existed where I
applied value and chose to be angry towards because I valued the opposite of
what was occurring and in the “trigger” moment, I chose to become angry. While
it took quite a while to come to truly accept this truth and then embrace it,
however I did shortly before I was 17. To say this improved my life is an understatement.
Realizing that while I have confines of birth that align a certain parameter to
my physical capabilities, mental capabilities, health, etc, I also have more
capabilities and potential to fill those confines with because I know that I am
not in dispose of any mythological leash that dictates who I am beyond that of
a minor chemical and electrical confine whose parameters I test daily without
my choices.

To say that accepting full responsibility for your life is a
difficult thing, is to miss the absolute stunning beauty and incredible joy of
life.

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Death, possibly the topic most feared, revered, discussed
and ignored on the subject of life. Few people tend to appreciate the weight
carried by ones view of death. It can break friendships, cause family to stop
talking to one another, incite violent events such as a fight, wars or even
taking one’s own life. However, it can also bring people together, cause
enemies to see eye to eye for the first time, create understanding or cause one
to bring life into this world. This is generally because, how one views death
often determines the path they choose in life. What religion they choose to
believe, or not believe, or were born in to and how that view causes them to
view death, ultimately comes from the finite life we know we have and that
looming notion of its end becomes something we must put in perspective. Some claim
acceptance, yet do nothing but avoid actual reflection of “life and death”, supposed
faith/and supposed lack of faith for these people often become a crutch that
allows the avoidance. I will gladly go a step further on this and say that
belief in that of otherworldly existence in and of itself is a complete
avoidance of truly contemplating death and the inevitability of it, what it
means, how it shapes, or has shaped you. Any notion of eternal life defies
death and is to disrespect this life that will end for all of us I believe,
which in part is a problem I do have with Heidegger’s philosophy on this
matter. Similar to issues I have had with Kierkegaard. I agree with their
points, angers, views on how people disregard various aspects of life with
complacent behavior only to engage an aspect of that themselves, that being
faith in a God and heaven. My larger issue is that of heaven more-so than a “God”.
In class, I stated that I believed Heidegger’s view point on “why do things
exist?” was a more personal point than that of Camus’ question of “does life
have meaning?”, and I stand by that. Does life have meaning can be altered by “why
do things exist?”. In fact, most discussions I have come across of this nature,
people find that answer of themselves based on why they believe things exist. I
do not believe I have ever seen the opposite to be said however. My point
being, I do not believe “does life have meaning” effects “why do things exist”,
I believe it is instead a symptom, or rather, an after effect of one coming to
terms with what they believe as to the point of “why do things exist”. I
believe that is the deeper personal question and point, as that has been the
driving force behind most, if not, everyone’s view of “does life have meaning”
of the many discussions I have had or read of. I believe that life has absolute
meaning, because we exist for no reason of omnipotence, only from a “cold”
calculative reasoning of events.

While I don’t want to die, like most people, I do respect death and appreciate
the greatness that is life I am able to experience every moment I am aware
because I have not and cannot experience death. I also appreciate the
existential test of eternal recurrence from Nietzsche in this situation as deep
contemplation of deaths inevitably leads to deep contemplation of life, and I
do not have any aspects of my life I would be ashamed or regret living again. I
believe that while I have made many mistakes, had choices where clearly option
2 was better than my option 1, I am proud of the person I am today as a result
of those choices. So again, while I do not want to die, I know that I have done
well with my life and would not die feeling as though I had wasted the life I
have had. I believe my dasein would complete.

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Of all the major philosophers,
Nietzsche is the most enjoyable to read for me. His lust for life and
appreciation for every breath he breathes jumps out of every page with the
passion of his points. Unfortunately, I often find that people greatly misinterpret
his words by getting hung up on a single notion that avoids his points
entirely. Two glaring misconceptions are of him being a nihilist and a
pessimist. Why? I would relate it to an issue I also find very common in
comedy, whether it be with stand-up comedians or comedic authors, is the use of
double entendres, sarcasm, and ironic musing. These expressive tools seem to be
incredible variables of interpretation that most simply pick pieces of the
point and construe their own definition of the joke. George Carlin was a master
at crafting jokes with such incredibly specific language and silences that
seeing him live was like listening to one of the most amazing concertos ever
composed. Yet still, many in the crowd would laugh at punch-lines that were,
quite literally, them. It was something that simply didn’t make sense to me.
These jokes weren’t ones that made jest of the idiotic things we all do, or
those character flaws we hate but can take a step back to laugh at; these were points
that attacked the views that defined these peoples entire existence and outright said ‘You are stupid as are your views’. So I would listen to
what people said, or have discussions with others, and primarily found that
people literally made their own jokes from portions of his, leaving out what should have caused an internal or external conflict. They would write
off his attacks with “he is a comedian” or simply disassociate those parts. In
the next breath, they would condemn politicians, news anchors and people for
unbelievably minor attacks in comparison. While I have many theories as to why
they do this, I don’t know the reality of where this disconnect exists, but I believe it is certainly routed in a form of denial. I bring
this up because Nietzsche’s work has parts that are written from different
perspectives, and can easily be taken out of context or incorrectly as the
"punch-line" is being ignored. I believe people do the same with Nietzsche as they
do with Carlin, or religion; they pick and choose components of the work to
create their “Nietzsche”, which tends to be something very different from the
original. While this is a common occurrence in arts, politics, philosophy, I
feel it is usually not to the same degree. I had hope that it would be
different in class than in general, however I feel that many still did just
that.

Understanding master morality and slave
morality is important, however it seemed that the majority of the material
focused on “slave” and “master”, and how the slaves had morals as they were the
opposition of the immoral masters who are simply tyrants of evil. I do not miss
the irony of my view of the situation and material in question either. To
summarize the concept, for the sake of time, master morality and slave morality
are not classes, they are mental guidelines that one sets for themselves due to
one’s own biology at birth and/or nurture of upbringing; two types of moral
compasses based on what righteousness you apply to your life. This with the
concept of will to power (not will to might) is often misconstrued I believe.
The will to power is, while ever changing through his work, the progression is
that of self-mastery, not dominance of all and tyrannical dictatorship. This is
where I wished we could have gone into the concept of the ubermensch, or over
man.

To me, this was one of the most important prose to understand Nietzsche.
It defines what he means by eternal occurrence which is living your life in a
manner you would happily say “yes, I would live that life over and over again”.
It shows his optimism and fear of the possibilities of evolution, as well as
his point being that it is something in our control as it derives of our
choices in life and our passion for life. You see this with the contrast
of the ubermensch and the last man. The ubermensch is simply the idea
Zarthustra presents, one he presents as an optimistic future of what man can
become. He is happy, loves those who love themselves truly, not egotistically,
those who give nothing to others and expects nothing from others because the
fruits of their labor provides as does that of the others. This man has a virtue,
not virtues, he hones his craft to master his virtue rather than distract
himself with many. He gives his life to this virtue thus becoming his destiny
(create your own destiny). He is generous, by his own nature, not because he
seeks it. He has no interest in a life beyond, but cares to have his feet
grounded on the Earth, and loves this planet of life unconditionally! Most
importantly, he is not the ubermensch, he is man that loves life, creativity,
self-mastery, and understands that the ubermensch is simply the idea of
greatness, not the goal, as Zarathustra later alludes to when he realizes a
number of his own mistakes such as living in the past. The last man is the
warning, the lazy being that simply exists because “I am” (utilitarian criticism). No aspiration, no
care or passion for experiencing life. He is the goal of the homebody, the
talentless and simply “empty”. He does not see this world, but looks beyond it
while he dies on this world and gives nothing to this world. The idea of the ubermensch is the spirit (so to speak) of master-morality,
while the last man is life without master-morality. The slave-morality is the herd
mentality of the people who laugh at the concept and ask to be the last man; it
is the device that leads to ruin. These are leaders, nobleman, the faithful,
etc; not slaves.

Seeing
these points make clear the concepts we seemed to get stuck on in class, which
lead us to a continuous loop of misunderstanding. Will to “power”, is not
simply “might is right”, it is self-power, or self-empowerment. It is
understanding the confines ("fate") of your birth and upbringing and using the tools you
have to master a virtue you love, to love every breath you have and cherish the
moment, to seek knowledge and become who you are. His praise of Johann Von
Goethe throughout his writings shows his adoration for the importance Goethe
put in his craft and how much of himself he gave to his virtue, his art.
Strength, and physical strength are but parts of the whole, not the whole.

I don’t criticize for the sake of
degrading the efforts put in, or to discredit or belittle; quite the contrary.
I do so because I love the beauty of Nietzsche’s prose and think it is a
travesty if the beauty is missed. I wish others to see it in the proper light,
that being a work of optimism, self-empowerment and an undying love for life
(for so long as one is remembered). This can be done even if you don’t agree
with his points.

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

In terms of Kierkegaard’s view of subjectivity and passion
and how they are essential to the “existence” of a person, to generalize the
complexity of the whole as a means to lead a point, is a point of view that I
could not agree with much more than I do. My complication of enjoying the
arguments of Kierkegaard has never come from his views of how one should arrive
to decide who they are, or that of the lack of passion that derives from birth
entitlements, status, or simply any sense of self that derives from the occurrence
of birth. In most every regard, I agree with his points of essentially deciding
who you are from an inward perspective. I find conflict in the fact that his
leap of faith concluded in a continued lateral stagnation of remaining
Christian.

Perhaps this will be seen as simply attacking the fact that
he did not renounce his faith, or that enlightenment and an honest inward view
of self can only conclude in ones loss of faith. In that regard, I can only say
it is entirely wrong in my intent, and hopefully that notion is let go while
reading this in order to see this point from my intended meaning, rather than
one of face value perception.

Through all of his works that I have read and studied,
Kierkegaard is very open to criticize faith and state how most are not of true
Christian faith as it comes with no internal conflict, subjective decisions of
the morality they choose of the life they live, a complete lack of passion to
truly care about “what” they believe life, morality, or simply faith is. Does
one simply argue their faith in god because they can provide self-formulated “evidence”
of the existence of omnipotence? Does that prove one has faith? Simply put, no.
He screams against the notion as it lacks any inward anxiety of personal struggle
with a true faith, a true personal relationship with “God”, one derived of your
own decisions of what life is from how you perceive morality and experience.

Why does this raise my ire of his points which I agree with in
terms of subjectivity bringing you to your own path of how you view life and
death and what meaning you apply to where that path leads? Simple, I never felt
he showed his anxiety or passion beyond simply proving he was a true Christian
as he understood a philosophical approach better than “Christians”, as well as
the Dialecticians such as Hegel (or Hegelians even). I always find, when I read
his work, I agree with his points of an inward life, and the paradox of faith,
I even agree with the leap of faith; yet I still feel such a massive disconnect
with his passion. It took a few readings before I could accept this unsettling
disconnect, as I had no issue that he “leaped” into the arms of his “God”, I
had a problem that it is never clear what inward anxiety separated him from
those he criticized and very heavily chastised or belittled for their
birthright beliefs. Obviously he had inner turmoil, Fear and Trembling leads to
his, more than likely, mimicking of the story of Abraham with his then wife to
be Regine Olsen by sacrificing what he loved most in an earthly regard in order
to devout his entire being to the love of his “God”. A true showing of faith.
However, I see only a child born of a “cursed” father because of his (the
fathers) sins against god (child out of wedlock, lords name in vain as a child,
etc) who instilled a heavy religious mindset and spent his life flagellating
himself for sins to a possible greater degree than his father is implied to
have done. I see someone who shows more a fear that he is not devout enough,
than someone who gave an honest subjective view of self in order to ever
actually have a “leap of faith”. To make the point simple, I believe that while
the views and critiques Kierkegaard proclaims are mostly fantastic, and a very
good perspective when the subject of self and personal meaning is at discussion,
I do not believe he was at all different from those he showed such a heavy
disdain for. I feel of what I have studied thus far only show a man who has
done an amazing job hiding his own fear of death and possible religious doubts
behind a passionate wall of finger pointing and angst.

Again, I still have more to study, and perhaps others could
guide me down a path of research that may shed some light on this being
incorrect. However, I have been searching his works, and I have yet to find
anything that shows me his faith was truly derived from a personal relationship
from his own struggle with faith and self in the first place, beyond that of
essentially being “more” of a “true” Christian. That bothers me.